High court hears U of L donor suit

Decision won't come for several months

Mar. 15, 2007

Written by

FRANKFORT, Ky. -- The public has a right to know who is donating money to the University of Louisville Foundation and what they may receive in return, an attorney for The Courier-Journal told the Kentucky Supreme Court yesterday.

"Many times these aren't gifts. These are deals… efforts to influence," said Jon Fleischaker, a lawyer for The Courier-Journal, which is seeking the names of more than 47,000 individual donors to the school. "It's a clear quid pro quo."

But Mike Risley, an attorney for the foundation, told the court that a donor's right to privacy outweighs the public's interest. And Risley said making the names public could have a chilling effect on donations.

"Nondisclosure is in the best interest of the public," he said.

The high court, members of which peppered the lawyers with questions, is not expected to rule for months.

Sixty-two of more than 47,000 donors requested anonymity, according to attorneys for both sides.

The question over the privacy rights of individual donors to the foundation, which receives and invests gifts to U of L, is the final matter to be resolved in a lawsuit The Courier-Journal filed in 2001.

The newspaper sued after it was denied records related to donations to U of L's McConnell Center for Political Leadership.

"The public has a right to know not only how they (the university) spend their money, but how they get their money," Fleischaker said during a 15-minute argument.

In November 2003, a Court of Appeals panel ruled that the foundation was a public agency, and the Supreme Court denied the foundation's request to review that decision.

The foundation decided in December 2003 not to appeal a lower court's order to release the names of corporate and private foundation donors.

But in May 2004, a different Court of Appeals panel ruled that the foundation didn't have to disclose the names of individual donors. The newspaper asked the Supreme Court to review that decision.

(Page 2 of 2)

Yesterday's questions by the justices dealt with whether naming donors would cause fewer people to give money, if donors to a public institution were waiving their right to privacy and how much information about a donor -- address and occupation, for example -- should be available.

Justice Mary Noble said that these particular donors gave to the foundation before it was ruled to be a public agency, and she asked whether they had reason to believe their names would remain private.

Risley said they did. "They were dealing with a private agency," he said.

He was also asked if the parents of a potential black student wouldn't want to know if former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke had donated money to the university.

Risley responded that they would want to know but, more important, the family would want to know how the university uses its money -- which is public record.

"Case law would suggest that even David Duke has a right to privacy," Risley said.

Asked in an interview if he knew of any examples of a donor trying to buy influence, Fleischaker said he couldn't discuss specifics because the cases are under seal. He said during court, however, that there are often situations where people donate money in exchange for sports tickets.

Risley said that Jefferson Circuit Court has already ruled that there is nothing "untoward or unusual about any of the gifts."

Fleischaker said he disagreed with Risley's characterization of the lower court ruling, but that it wasn't important to the case.

"The question is not, 'Do we know of any specific incidents of wrongdoing or buying of influence,' " Fleischaker said. "The question is, "Could that situation exist,' and we believe we have a right to find out."